How Is Christ Present in the Lord's Supper? Pt 2

This past Sunday’s message focused on the how we worship during the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11: 17-32)  In the message I briefly discussed the different views on the presence of Christ during the Lord’s Supper.  The three views I mentioned were the Roman Catholic position (Transubstantiation); the Lutheran position (Consubstantiation), and the generally accepted Protestant view (the Symbolic and Spiritual Presence of Christ). 

Yesterday’s was post was Wayne Grudem’s summary of the Roman Catholic position (Transubstantiation) as published in his Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Bible Doctrine.

Today we see his discussion of the Lutheran View (Consubstantiation)

The Lutheran View: Consubstantiation.

    Martin Luther rejected the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper, yet he insisted that the phrase “This is my body” had to be taken in some sense as a literal statement. His conclusion was not that the bread actually becomes the physical body of Christ, but that the physical body of Christ is present “in, with, and under” the bread of the Lord’s Supper. The example sometimes given is to say that Christ’s body is present in the bread as water is present in a sponge—the water is not the sponge, but is present “in, with, and under” a sponge, and is present wherever the sponge is present. Other examples given are that of magnetism in a magnet or a soul in the body.

The Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper is found in the textbook of Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics. He quotes Luther’s Small Catechism: “What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.”⁷ Similarly, the Augsburg Confession, Article X, says, “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat in the Supper of the Lord.”

One passage that may be thought to give support to this position is 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

However, in order to affirm this doctrine, Luther had to answer an important question: How can Christ’s physical body, or more generally Christ’s human nature, be everywhere present? Is it not true that Jesus in his human nature ascended into heaven and remains there until his return? Did he not say that he was leaving the earth and would no longer be in the world but was going to the Father (John 16:28; 17:11)? In answer to this problem Luther taught the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature after his ascension—that is, that Christ’s human nature was present everywhere (“ubiquitous”). But theologians ever since Luther’s time have suspected that he taught the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature, not because it is found anywhere in Scripture, but because he needed it to explain how his view of consubstantiation could be true.

In response to the Lutheran view, it can be said that it too fails to realize that Jesus is speaking of a spiritual reality but using physical objects to teach us when he says, “This is my body.” We should take this no more literally than we take the corresponding sentence, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). In fact, Luther does not really do justice to Jesus’ words in a literal sense at all. Berkhof rightly objects that Luther really makes the words of Jesus mean, “This accompanies my body.” In this matter it would help to read again John 6:27–59, where the context shows that Jesus is talking in literal, physical terms about bread, but he is continually explaining it in terms of spiritual reality.

Tomorrow we will look Grudem’s summary of the generally accepted Protestant view (the Symbolic and Spiritual Presence of Christ)